Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Historical context of illegal aliens immigrants, squatter problems, Long Island needs to pay attention to the past, how did Manhattan and Brooklyn get rid of shantytowns and squatters
I am reading a book called, "Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World" by Robert Neuwirth. There is a chapter on old NY and some of the quotations in it from actual NY Times articles and editorials of the mid-1800s floor me because they say the same thing about the "squatters" of old as we are saying about illegal aliens! The chapter also reveals how they took care of the squatter problem and perhaps that could point LI in the right way as to how to take care of the illegal alien problem. Here are some quotes:
"in 1867, the newspaper [NY Times] again weighed in with a nasty editorial:
They are conspirators against the order of society; and their ability to defy the law is referable primarily -- solely, we may say -- to the fact that the male adult portion of them are invested with the right of citizenship, or succeed generally in voting at elections, whether they have the right or not. They are universally courted by office-seekers of high and low degree; and their votes are held sufficient by the ruling class in the City, to be a full equivalent for the immunity from rents, taxes, and licenses, which they enjoy."
Although the difference here is that the squatters of old were citizens, the complaints against them are similar and the politicians of old seemed to favor them just like politicians of today do not do what it takes to control the illegal alien problem.
Here is a description of the shantytown problem comparable to the illegal alien flophouse problems of today:
"There are numerous shanties in the northern portions of my district, which are occupied by a shiftless, careless, filthy class of people, who ignore the commonest requirements of decency and cleanliness living in intimate association with and proximity to dogs, horses, pigs, geese and other biped and quadrupeds, whose habits they assimilate and whose filth commingles with their own," a Health Department official wrote in 1876.
"It is next to impossible to do anything with these people, or to improve their sanitary surroundings. Complaints innumerable have been made to me, and orders by the score have been issued by the Boards against these shanties, but with very little permanent effect. Their occupants are an irresponsible set, against whom a legal proceeding would be worthless, and after a superficial cleansing of the Augean stables, they soon relapse into and wallow in their pristine filth. The only radical remedy for these nuisances is to drive the shanty population out altogether from their strongholds, an event which is certainly only a question of time."
"The local press piled on the criticism as well. "Squatters are in every land a terror and a scourge," The New York Times editorialized in 1854, calling their existance, "additional reason to pity the rich." Thirteen years later, the newspaper was still carping. Squatting, the newspaper lamented, "will go on just as long as the squatter population and their kindred are sustained with the idea that they are a strong and dominant political force among us." And again, 18 years on, The Times called for "a vigorous movement against these foul habitations." To The Times and most other newspapers, the squatters were godless criminals, a scourge, a nuisance, a horror."
So how did old NY, mainly Manhattan and Brooklyn, get rid of shantytowns and squatters? THROUGH VIGOROUS LEGAL ENFORCEMENT AND A POLICY OF NON-TOLERANCE. That is where LI can learn from history. We need to stop giving a slap on the wrist to slumlords and owners of makeshift flophouses. A $500 fine (typical) is nothing to people who stand to make the kind of money they do by overcrowding what was built as a 1-family home. Raise the fines. How about $50,000? That might make a slumlord think before he ruins a 1-family home and brings in tenants, who pay no taxes, that will surely cause the law-abiding taxpayer to have to pay even more.
Another thing to do is shun politicians who give illegal aliens a break. Why, for example, is Tom Suozzi in office? If what I heard is correct, he advocates/advocated having an illegal immigrant "job center" set up and paid for in Glen Cove by the taxpayers. Uh, who wants to PAY money so other people who are here illegally and pay no taxes, whose families suck up our social services at a rate higher than legal citizens who pay taxes do, can find off the books work in comfort? The audacity is unbelievable. I also hear there is something like this in Suffolk County. Which politician had this brainstorm and is he still in office?
Things are going to get worse unless the people start demanding action!
I am reading a book called, "Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World" by Robert Neuwirth. There is a chapter on old NY and some of the quotations in it from actual NY Times articles and editorials of the mid-1800s floor me because they say the same thing about the "squatters" of old as we are saying about illegal aliens! The chapter also reveals how they took care of the squatter problem and perhaps that could point LI in the right way as to how to take care of the illegal alien problem. Here are some quotes:
"in 1867, the newspaper [NY Times] again weighed in with a nasty editorial:
They are conspirators against the order of society; and their ability to defy the law is referable primarily -- solely, we may say -- to the fact that the male adult portion of them are invested with the right of citizenship, or succeed generally in voting at elections, whether they have the right or not. They are universally courted by office-seekers of high and low degree; and their votes are held sufficient by the ruling class in the City, to be a full equivalent for the immunity from rents, taxes, and licenses, which they enjoy."
Although the difference here is that the squatters of old were citizens, the complaints against them are similar and the politicians of old seemed to favor them just like politicians of today do not do what it takes to control the illegal alien problem.
Here is a description of the shantytown problem comparable to the illegal alien flophouse problems of today:
"There are numerous shanties in the northern portions of my district, which are occupied by a shiftless, careless, filthy class of people, who ignore the commonest requirements of decency and cleanliness living in intimate association with and proximity to dogs, horses, pigs, geese and other biped and quadrupeds, whose habits they assimilate and whose filth commingles with their own," a Health Department official wrote in 1876.
"It is next to impossible to do anything with these people, or to improve their sanitary surroundings. Complaints innumerable have been made to me, and orders by the score have been issued by the Boards against these shanties, but with very little permanent effect. Their occupants are an irresponsible set, against whom a legal proceeding would be worthless, and after a superficial cleansing of the Augean stables, they soon relapse into and wallow in their pristine filth. The only radical remedy for these nuisances is to drive the shanty population out altogether from their strongholds, an event which is certainly only a question of time."
"The local press piled on the criticism as well. "Squatters are in every land a terror and a scourge," The New York Times editorialized in 1854, calling their existance, "additional reason to pity the rich." Thirteen years later, the newspaper was still carping. Squatting, the newspaper lamented, "will go on just as long as the squatter population and their kindred are sustained with the idea that they are a strong and dominant political force among us." And again, 18 years on, The Times called for "a vigorous movement against these foul habitations." To The Times and most other newspapers, the squatters were godless criminals, a scourge, a nuisance, a horror."
So how did old NY, mainly Manhattan and Brooklyn, get rid of shantytowns and squatters? THROUGH VIGOROUS LEGAL ENFORCEMENT AND A POLICY OF NON-TOLERANCE. That is where LI can learn from history. We need to stop giving a slap on the wrist to slumlords and owners of makeshift flophouses. A $500 fine (typical) is nothing to people who stand to make the kind of money they do by overcrowding what was built as a 1-family home. Raise the fines. How about $50,000? That might make a slumlord think before he ruins a 1-family home and brings in tenants, who pay no taxes, that will surely cause the law-abiding taxpayer to have to pay even more.
Another thing to do is shun politicians who give illegal aliens a break. Why, for example, is Tom Suozzi in office? If what I heard is correct, he advocates/advocated having an illegal immigrant "job center" set up and paid for in Glen Cove by the taxpayers. Uh, who wants to PAY money so other people who are here illegally and pay no taxes, whose families suck up our social services at a rate higher than legal citizens who pay taxes do, can find off the books work in comfort? The audacity is unbelievable. I also hear there is something like this in Suffolk County. Which politician had this brainstorm and is he still in office?
Things are going to get worse unless the people start demanding action!
Isn't it funny how history repeats itself. You can't say anything about illegal aliens today that wasn't said about legal immigrants then. I guess the real point is "Immigrants". When they come in too many and too quickly, whether legal or illegal.
I have been aware of this issue since before I even graduated middle school; so for a little over 8 years now. And in 8 years I have seen NOTHING happen regarding enforcement; if anything I have seen the illegal/mass legal immigration get even worse.
The first time in my life that I am eligible to vote in a presidential election (I was not old enough in 2004) I have 3 choices neither of whom even represent the American people or our country and instead would rather pander to foreign nations and their citizens
I have been aware of this issue since before I even graduated middle school; so for a little over 8 years now. And in 8 years I have seen NOTHING happen regarding enforcement; if anything I have seen the illegal/mass legal immigration get even worse.
The first time in my life that I am eligible to vote in a presidential election (I was not old enough in 2004) I have 3 choices neither of whom even represent the American people or our country and instead would rather pander to foreign nations and their citizens
If anyone wants to read a fascinating book, it's called "The Alienist" by Caleb Carr. Caleb is an historian and 'The Alienist' was the first time he took his wealth of historical knowledge and used it in fiction. It takes place in the same time period as your New York Times article and it takes place in NYC. It's probably the best ad most descriptive book I've ever read. You'll feel and see what it was like to live in New York more than 100 years ago.
I believe people would be more willing to consider amnesty for illegals if they made a concerted effort to learn English and respect our laws and social mores.
Isn't it funny how history repeats itself. You can't say anything about illegal aliens today that wasn't said about legal immigrants then. I guess the real point is "Immigrants". When they come in too many and too quickly, whether legal or illegal.
History is an amazing teacher, if we let it be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
